I told the NRA today I agree with background checks

[keith44spl]

Just joined the NRA this week due to the persuasive powers of the many good people on this Forum.

On the phone with them today to confirm my membership and I mentioned to the nice lady on the phone that I agreed with background checks.

Her answer was that they appreciated my input and that they agreed that there were certain people, like the insane and violent felons, who should not have guns.

I suspect that a universal background check will be passed with overwhelming support.

.
Well, ain't that just special.......



We'd better be making some really good photos of em............

Here in a few years....It's not going to be about weither or not your a prohibited person...



I ain't folding my hand....I'll just go on and play er out.



.

 

[mkk41]

How long will it take to get every Felon, Whacko and Drug Addict into the Federal background check system? Months? Years? Forever? It sounds like a great idea up front but consider the time and money involved to implement this idea into a working system. Just WHO is going to decide what person goes on the list as a whacko? Is it the young man who likes rap music and walks around with his pants down so far that his underwear is showing? Should every person who takes Prozac or other anti-depression medications go on the Whacko list (remember that many of the shooters were on anti-dep meds). Are all people diagnosed with PTSD going on the no firearms list? What about the young adult whose parents had him arrested while a teenager for being rebellious? So many examples.

The above are just a few of the questions that no one has addressed in regard to who goes on the buy/no-buy background check list. This background check question is something that no one IMO should blindly support. There are too many questions that have to be answered before I can support such a measure.

Remember too that if a person is intent on doing harm, no background check in the world is going to stop him. If you really wanted a firearm, could you get it? I think so. If nothing else you could make a single shot pistol and kill an authority figure who has a real one. Does anybody remember the Liberator pistol from WW2?

This is a really slippery slope. We should all think carefully before backing such a dangerous measure.

Charlie

That's why the Feds will undoubtedly pass the buck , or BUCK$$$ to the individual states. The states will do the actual legwork and simply Email info to BATF/FBI/CIA/UN/KGB/GRU/MI5/NWO

 

[thefirstndsecond]

Private sales should not have back ground checks for long guns.

Long guns statistically are not used in crime. If there were back ground checks for private sales the government would not have a full registration database.

It is already illegal for the mentally ill to have guns. If you are prohibited you are not supposed to have guns either.

Some of us in PA follow if you have your LTCF then a private sale is not a big deal.




SAY NO TO MORE BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!!!

 

[mkk41]

I guess we need to just do away with the entire 4th Amendment. After all, you wouldn't mind getting your home/business/car/person subjected to a search without a warrant "if you got nothing to hide" now would you?

"There's no need for privacy if you have nothing to hide!"

I remember ol' Slick Willy Clinton saying something like that just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.

He didn't repeat is afterwards.

 

[thefirstndsecond]

As I have said before. I understand "shall not be infringed" and that is all I agree too. Machine guns have been illegal for over 75 years and the bad guys still have them. Nobody how ever shown me any law that has ever kept an outlaw from doing whatever he wanted too. All the law does is punish after the fact. Larry

Actually machine guns and silencers may be purchased according to the federal government you just have to get a tax stamp for 200 and jump through a couple more hoops.

READ THE LAWS.

 

[cmort666]

Do you know the protocals they're proposing?

I don't need to. I know the people proposing them.

I don't care what he would have SAID was on the menu, I still wouldn't have eaten dinner at Jeffrey Dahmer's place.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

NRA President David Keene on the subject of background checks.

CBS News to NRA President: Is the NRA just going to keep resisting? » The Right Scoop -

 

[2152hq]

....The GCA of 1968, which barred felons from owning firearms, should be repealed.

Outlawing private sales is a huge step down the slippery slope.

FWIW,,,felons have been barred from possessing firearms since 1938,,Federal Firearms Act.
Also enacted the 'FFL' system of licensing gun dealers

GCA'68 is for the most part a re-write and expansion of the '38 law.
Added to again w/Crime Bill of '86

It just keeps getting bigger...

I don't care for restrictions,,I don't care for background checks and licensing.
But you can't judge a person,,any person even one you think you know w/o the facts of their past mental and legal history.
There's no 'look' to a violent person.

There's plenty of current laws that are on the books that say who can and who can not own a firearm.
They all set standards, guidelines, ect by which to follow. If not they state a punishment to be handed out if caught violating the standard.
It's after the fact law. Like a speed limit.

A felon isn't supposed to have a firearm..Fed law since 1938.
Nothing to stop him/her,,just says what will happen if caught.
That's after the fact.

You have to decide if a background check done before a firearms sale is a preventative measure that is important enough in the overall view of things.
Will it prevent any violence/crime at the cost of inconvenience or loss of any rights to you?
Or will it do absolutely nothing, zero, at any time to keep a person who should not have a firearm (convicted felon, mentally ill, drug addict, illegal alien, subject of order of protection, subject of arrest warrant, ect) from purchasing a gun from you.

It's a tough question to answer if you feel strongly about the 2A,,but have also been or have someone close to you been the shooting victim(s) of one of the above persons.

 

[Joewisc]

Most states already have 'em. Those that don't can adopt. Why do we need "universal"? It's code for the federal government taking more control of our private lives.

 

[mkk41]

Private sales should not have back ground checks for long guns.

Long guns statistically are not used in crime. If there were back ground checks for private sales the government would not have a full registration database.

It is already illegal for the mentally ill to have guns. If you are prohibited you are not supposed to have guns either.

Some of us in PA follow if you have your LTCF then a private sale is not a big deal.

Hello , the recent crowd and school shootings have all been committed with AR's , which are LONG GUNS.

Would you sell an AR or any gun you own to someone you don't know?

If they are a prohibited person and/or do commit a crime using it , you can still be dragged thru the mud by laywers and the court of public opinion. You may not be criminally liable , but you just may be found civilly liable. And financially responsible. And it'll end up costing you a lot more than you made selling that gun.

True , here in PA most of the time a long gun is untracable to anyone but the original retail purchaser.

But I also have a conscience. And just claiming "but there's no law AGAINST it" , just gets all of us in deeper , hotter water.


And more often than not , there's usually a nice profit in straw purchases.

 

[Mike McLellan]

My problem with background checks is that they only reveal what a person has been witnessed to have done in the past. It, in no way, can predict what a person may do in the future. In addition, what could be found in a person's personal history that should exclude him from the Bill of Rights? Emotional problems? Mental disorders? If so, what kind? Depression? Autism? PTSD? Eating disorders? And finally, who will make the final determination whether an applicant is "normal" enough to exercise the right to keep and bear arms? Will there be an appeal process? I know. Way too many questions. There's no way they'd let me have a gun.

 

[Maximumbob54]

Uck. I can't read anymore.



The Left has already done the first step of this plan and that's to find a way to have the Second Amendment divide us. Now we have started to fight among each other instead of being the consolidated movement that gun owners have usually always been. And they have broken the strongest supporting lobbyist that has best supported the Second Amendment by fracturing the members of the NRA.

 

[tops]

Actually machine guns and silencers may be purchased according to the federal government you just have to get a tax stamp for 200 and jump through a couple more hoops.

READ THE LAWS.

I very well know the laws. You are the one that needs to read and comprehend what you read. "Shall not be infringed" means not jumping through hoops. I also understand that everyone on this forum is not a gun person and that some are antigun and are just trying to post some of their antigun rhetoric. Larry

 

[mkk41]

If I hold CCW permit, which I do, having been thoroughly checked out by the FBI and State, why should I have to pay for a background check every time I buy a gun or a box of ammo?

RIGHT!

I have an FFL(C&R) and LTCF. I can order all the guns and ammo I want , but if I want one box at a dealer , I need to do a BG check?

Here in PA , there's a $5 fee for every gun sale background check , which goes to pay for the PICS - Pennsylvania Instant Check System. Even if you have a LTCF!


I'm also interested to see what the new BATFE director will do about C&R licenses.

 

[o3rugby1]

Inconvenience? I thought the 2A is a Right. Not an Inconvience.

 

[jdh]

Background checks:
Guilty until proven innocent is not one of founding principles of this formerly great nation.

Machine guns/Suppressors:
A right that requires a permit and/or the payment of tribute to the government ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege which can be revoked at the whim of that government.

 

[M29since14]

I don't need to. I know the people proposing them.

I don't care what he would have SAID was on the menu, I still wouldn't have eaten dinner at Jeffrey Dahmer's place.

That sums it up nicely, from what I can tell. Who trusts these liars to do what they say they are going to do? We are not dealing with nice folks who want to fix a problem but are still concerned with our God-given rights. We are talking about people who do not believe you have any God-given rights and who will stoop to anything to get their way.

JMHO. Others can favor so-called universal background checks or anything else as they please, but I think it misguided. As one of our great pundits here once said, "No sir! and no thank you!"

 

[cp1969]

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?

And where did the notion come from that a "felon", after he paid his debt, has no right to protect his family ? Or better yet, fight tyranny?

Or that someone who who has some kind of trivial mental disorder has no right to protect himself?

All of these little feel-good "reasonable" infringements eventually add up.

 

[gdauth]

After reading this thread, I need to remind some of you that this forum is readable by the public. Some of you provide ammunition for the antigun crowd. As for building a list of gun owners, all they have to do is get the manufacture's records and they will find a lot of us. Use your credit card to buy guns or ammo, well there is another list they can use. Buy your stuff at Wally World, well there is another computer that has your information. In fact, if they want to trace you by your use of this forum, they can. In fact I bet some of you are already in the NSA computers.

 

[rcpaul]

Here in pa you need a back ground check but you don't have to show a I'd to vote I would be all fore back ground checks if back ground checks were required before you cast your vote